Tuesday, 25 November 2014

26 November 2014

I have thought
for many years that the State Services Commission was redundant and should be
abolished.

I felt that in
these days of more autonomy for departmental chief executives the oversight
role of the SSC was no longer necessary, and that the responsibility should
rest with individual chief executives.

Recent events
have forced me to change that view. Ironically, the utter ineptitude of the
SSC’s handling of the Sutton case has been the reason. Here was a case of
serious misconduct by a chief executive – which did require external
intervention – which was so mishandled by the SSC as to draw attention to the
need for it to be seriously reformed.

It should start
at the top. The State Services Commissioner has performed very poorly in this
instance, and should be replaced. A more vibrant, independent leadership, not
politically beholden to the government of the day is needed to oversee
reshaping the SSC to become a more performance improvement and professional
standards monitor of government agencies and their chief executives, rather
than the defender of the status quo and protector of the government’s perceived
interests it seems to be at present.

In the same vein,
the role of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet merits review. Too
often, the DPMC has been seen as a protective mirror image of the SSC, each
bolstering and supporting the other, rather than independent agencies carrying
out separate functions. The attendance and performance of the DPMC chief
executive at the infamous Sutton press conference highlights the point. Worse,
however unfounded, is the implication of a very cosy arrangement between CERA,
the SSC and DPMC, and Mr Sutton to resolve his situation in a way that
minimised embarrassment, with no apparent regard for the victim(s) involved.
DPMC should never forget that its role is to provide the Prime Minister of the
day with the best possible advice and information on current issues, but not to
act, as increasingly appears the case, as some sort of political praetorian
guard.

State sector
reform since the 1980s has been allegedly about promoting greater transparency
and accountability. In the light of the Sutton case, a justifiable argument can
be mounted that those principles have been well and truly cast aside, at least
by central agencies. Serving the public interest appears to have given way to
keeping the ship of state on a smooth course. That is the job of politicians,
not public servants, and when they start to confuse the roles, it is time they
were moved on.

The only good to
emerge from the Sutton case is to learn from all the bad practices it contains.
The failings of Mr Sutton, the SSC and the DPMC are now obvious and need to be
addressed. Beyond that lies the wider issue of the reform of the key agencies
themselves.

But the biggest
issue – and the one still unspoken of – is the impact on the victim(s) in both
this case, and the many other potential cases continuing undetected across the
public sector.

Now, that would
be a task a fit for purpose SSC could really focus its attention upon.